NRA NRA NAR NRA
NRA NRA NRA NRA
Web publisher Surge.sh blames a single trademark-infringement complaint for stripping more than 38,000 websites from the internet. Surge offers webspace and tools for creating sites, and uses New York-based DigitalOcean to run the underlying server that powers its hosted websites. Surge said DigitalOcean pulled the plug on its …
Writing, according to the NRA is incompatible. they would state that the index finger should only be used for one thing: pulling the trigger. Forget safeties, forget trigger locks, forget something as faggie (American usage only here, no limp wristed british verbiage allowed, this is 'merka, son) as writin'.
It's a shame that those immensely clever people who came up with that parody couldn't manage to make it in the old, time-honored tradition of calling the groups by names that weren't QUITE covered by trademarks, but that everyone knew anyway.
Parody is covered - direct use isn't always...
Basic mistake : never make fun of The Man on his own territory. Many a court jester learned that the hard way. Today's environment is no different, it's just that the kings wear different kinds of crowns.
Should've hosted the video on some hosting site in Switzerland or somesuch. No takedown notice works there.
Ah right, you actually have to manage the web site, the bandwidth, etc.. what a hassle.
Oh well.
As much as I dislike the NRA (not because I'm anti-gun, I just don't like some of the things that they do), this article is really misleading. Let's start with the title:
"NRA guns down 38,000 Surge.sh sites in anti-parody spray-and-pray"
No, the NRA didn't "gun down" anything. They followed the DMCA and filed a cease-and-desist. DigitalOcean is the one that shut down ALL of Surge.sh and not just the fake news site. So blame DigitalOcean, not the NRA.
"..which was upset about a parody website lampooning the ammosexuals."
Name-calling and journalism don't really mix. Leave your bias out of news.
"The NRA has yet to respond to a request for comment on the matter."
Why should they? They didn't shut anything down, DigitalOcean did.
The site in question wasn't just parody. They used the NRA trademark in the FQDN, they used the NRA trademark (and the Smith & Wesson trademark) all over the site, used the NRA logos, etc. Even the copyright on the page said MRA and Smith & Wesson. Unless somebody really knew what the *REAL* NRA news site was, they wouldn't even know that it was a fake site. IMHO, they crosses the parody line and then looked back at it and crapped all over it.
This was just a huge stunt to try and get more bad feelings towards the NRA, and you're just playing into it.
Did you read the NRA take down request to know that the NRA only requested one site? After all, they went to the DNS service first, not the website owner or the hosting provider. I'm not convinced the NRA knew what to request be taken down, and apparently neither did DigitalOcean.
The NRA did not follow the DMCA.
They issued a DMCA "take-down" notice for an alleged trademark violation.
The DMCA take-down process is only for copyright violations.
And no, using a trademarked logo is *not* a copyright violation.
They were abusing the already-extreme power of the DMCA.
I don't hold DigitalOcean blameless in this either. They should have recognized it as an invalid notice. At minimum they should have asked for clarification about it's obvious deficiencies. Shutting off a paying customer because of such an obviously flawed notice should leave them liable for all damage, and earn them well-deserved negative PR.
"DMCA abused by powerful lobby/company to illegally suppress commentary and criticism. Haven't seen that before." For it to be judged illegal it would have to be judged in a court of law. I see you are following the same script as the spokesdrone for surge.sh who claimed they hadn't been warned when they had been repeatedly - lie, claim "illegal suppression", probably cap it off with some unsubstantiated whining about "free speech"..... Yup, haven't seen that before - not!
@EveryTime What DMCA complaint? I don't see any DMCA complaint anywhere.
On June 23rd, we received notice from the NRA's counsel that sharethesafety.org was infringing NRA’s trademarks.
FYI, that doesn't sound like a DMCA complaint. That looks like a trademark violation notice not a copyright violation notice. Sorry but the NRA didn't abuse DMCA power any more than you or I have. Well, any more than I have since I can't really speak for you.
I agree that DigitalOcean spazzed out and over-reacted but they themselves admit that they only received a complaint about a single site and now they are simply trying to shift the blame for going "new-cue-lar" at the wrong target.
"Name-calling and journalism don't really mix" - maybe not on your planet, but here on Earth they've been inseparable for at least 200 years.
"Why should they [respond]?" Because lots of news outlets, not just El Reg, is running a story about them. Normal PR practice would be to issue a statement.
Sure, very likely the "parody" was a trademark violation. But trademarks aren't covered by the DMCA, and they're not normally subject to any regime of "takedown notice". The proper place to pursue that case is in the courts, not pulling the plug on an entire domain.
"No, the NRA didn't "gun down" anything. They followed the DMCA and filed a cease-and-desist."
They misused the DMCA and filed an illegal cease-and-desist for a protected work.
This might be the case that finally sees perjury penalties being used, but then again it probably won't be.
Well, I'm confused. ShareTheSafety.org appears to be up and running, and if it's satire it's being very concealed-carry about it.
NRA can't ask to shutdown anything, there are courts for that, if they feel the trade marks are being abused, quite simple, go to the local courthouse, file a complaint and there are mechanisms to do this the proper way.
Digital Ocean or any other Service provider has no competence to take these decisions.
NRA didn't do the right thing, neither any of the involved providers. Right answer should have been as simple as: Please contact competent authorities, if given legal basis we are happy to cooperate with the competent authorities to resolve the issue, until then we don't feel competent to decide on such dispute.
Given El Reg has built its business and reputation on mixing bias, name calling, and news, you're clearly "not from around here"
The amount of logos and even a parody copyright statement don't stop a parody being a parody.
I don't normally call people who disagree with me a paid astroturfer, but given your unfamiliarity with the registers style, your defence of the NRA's action and your highly suspect claim not to normally agree with them, I just have one question:
Where can I get a job like yours?
...is to just lock your doors and windows.
If you have to resort to gun play in your home for 'protection', you have kind of failed your family anyway.
In moments of stress/fear most people cant shoot for shit, even if they spend hours a month down the range and plasterboard doesn't do a lot to stop those stray bullets.
Big fail.
They actually make bullets that will fracture when they hit things like plasterboard because of situations like this.
You can lock your doors, put tamper-resistant jambs on, put bars on your windows, etc. If somebody wants in badly enough, they'll find a way in. NOT having a contingency plan is more of a failure. Granted, having a 'safe room' is better than both ideas.
".....In moments of stress/fear most people cant shoot for shit....." Oh dear, you probably really won't like the news that a citizen, who (luckily) happened to be a licensed concealed carrier, stopped a mass shooting outside a South Carolina nightclub, by shooting the shooter - http://www.goupstate.com/article/20160627/articles/160629757. No, you go on insisting that guns never prevent crime, never saved a life, whatever.
What was that you said about a big fail?
Oh dear, you probably really won't like the news that a citizen, who (luckily) happened to be a licensed concealed carrier, stopped a mass shooting outside a South Carolina nightclub, by shooting the shooter - http://www.goupstate.com/article/20160627/articles/160629757. No, you go on insisting that guns never prevent crime, never saved a life, whatever.
If I arrest and lock up everyone shopping at a busy shopping street on Saturday it's pretty much guaranteed that I will have prevented a shoplifter in the process. Just ignore the fact that you've trampled over the rights of everyone else, it's the success that matters!
Your approach is used to justify global mass surveillance: "look, we (usually accidentally) caught a paedophile so it's all OK". WTF do we have law enforcement for if people have to keep guns themselves for protection, and why isn't that needed in almost every other country on the planet - even those with a fairly permissive gun ownership culture (but not as lunatic as the US)?
".....If I arrest and lock up everyone shopping at a busy shopping street on Saturday it's pretty much guaranteed that I will have prevented a shoplifter in the process......Your approach is used to justify global mass surveillance....' LOL, you guys are so funny when you try and think of an analogy which matches up to your paranoia/baaaaahliefs! Did I ever say lock up all Internet users? Please do show a post where I stated that?
Try and think for a second - the police in every country in the World have the authority to observe you driving on the road and stop you if you are suspected of infringing the local driving laws. Your analogy would require that the police simply lock up every driver the minute they got in their cars, which is obviously male bovine manure of the lowest quality. The police may monitor and patrol the roads, but they do not simply arrest everyone that is driving. The GCHQ and NSA (and any other number of agencies) are simply observing the behavior of a tiny fraction of Internet users, in effect they are monitoring and patrolling, they are not saying lock up all Internet users. Fail!
"....WTF do we have law enforcement for if people have to keep guns themselves for protection...." Because criminals prey on the weak, they don't usually wait for a copper to appear before committing a crime. I may be a hard concept for you to follow, but many criminals don't actually want to get caught (or shot)! The police cannot be everywhere, so citizens need to take what measures they can to defend themselves and their property. I don't see you moaning about houses having locks on their doors to deter thieves - "oh, WTF do we have law enforcement for if people have to use locks on their doors" - yeah, sounds really, really stupid, doesn't it? More fail!
Your level of "argument" is so amusingly obtuse, it is hard to think of one its equal. The only one I can think of would be to compare US gun-deaths to those suffered due to medical negligence (you best get an adult to help you with this). Even including suicides in the gun-death figures, three times as many people die every year in the US as a result of medical negligence. A common factor in all those cases is medical staff - do you want to ban all doctors? Go on, if all you care about is the number of people dying then your logic insists that is the correct action. Yeah, you fail again!
Well, at least your failure is consistent!
"...That fact a society requires or enables that situation in the first place is in effect...a big FAIL...." I assume that was the usual incompetent attempt to denigrate the right to carry arms in the US? Consider for a moment - the guy arrested for the shooting was illegally carrying a weapon, he had no license, making him a criminal. The citizen that shot him was a law-abiding person. Banning guns by laws only results in the law-abiding handing in (or having taken away) their guns, as shown in the UK, where gun-crime went up after the ban on handguns, and places like Chicago, where bans on concealed carry for years only left the criminals shooting people with frightening regularity. By definition, criminals do not follow the law, so, in this case, removing guns from law-abiding citizens would have meant that the criminal would still have had his illegal gun and would still have started shooting, you would have just removed the legally-owned gun from the guy that actually stopped him before someone got fatally wounded. No doubt, if there had been fatalities, you would use those fatalities in an attempt to justify your irrational hatred for gun-owners, the denial is simply so strong in you. It is a big fail on your part that you cannot see that.
"If you have to pull a gun on someone then a whole chain of sad sad nasty FAIL has happened....." Yes, but that fail has many social factors that are nothing to do with legal gun-ownership (black-on-black violence would be an unpopular start), so pretending they will all be solved by banning legal gun-ownership is simply stupid.
"....Not going to convince me otherwise....." LOL, what a surprise - not! I really just wanted to see what amusing drivel you tried to use to counter the arguments I presented, but you have simply chosen to back away from anything that may challenge your obviously emotionally-based and not logically-based beliefs.
".....But you keep living your strange masturbatory dream...." Two interesting elements there. Firstly there is your reinforcement of your denial - you cannot or do not want to discuss the illogicality of your position when faced with simple facts, preferring to accuse me of "dreaming" rather than face the reality of the facts I pointed out. The second is your illusion to some sexual connection with guns - Freudian, maybe?
The citizen that shot him was a law-abiding person. Banning guns by laws only results in the law-abiding handing in (or having taken away) their guns, as shown in the UK, where gun-crime went up after the ban on handguns
Can you give me a source for that, please, because that doesn't correlate with the Met Police briefings I've had over the years, nor with published statistics, so I suspect you're doing a Donald Trump here.
Oh, and quite a few US massacres were committed with legally acquired weapons. This creates a degree of irony: you can commit acts of terror with legally acquired guns. Go figure.
Last but not least, you claim people that argue with you have a hatred for gun owners. Nope. Been one myself, and still go shooting regularly on a formal, well controlled London shooting range. I have a hatred for idiots who prioritise their "right" to buy dangerous toys over the right of others to be safe from utter morons who can get hold of guns too. There has not been a single mention EVER about banning guns, only a demand to close loopholes and make the checking better, but as soon as someone even dares mention a sane measure everyone goes straight overboard and claims that the aim is a ban.
No, the aim of controls is to reduce the number of idiots walking around with a gun. By now, it appears the "idiot" category has to include anyone associated with the NRA. You could be part of the debate on what would be best to preserve the rights you have but clamp down on the morons, but instead you chose to be part of the problem. That means you deserve all derision you get. Be careful with on the way out so that your knuckles don't bleed all over the doorstop.
I don't have a clue what kind of authority NRA has, but from what I could see none.
I work for years in Service providers and several like Digital Ocean.
You should not take anything offline without a certified judicial order, period!
If someone comes to you and say this and that, the provider just has to say, please contact the law enforcement responsible and after a court order we can suspend the content.
Rookie mistake!
Seen several cases like this in the past of people, some for the proper reasons and some for the wrong reasons, I, you and Service Providers aren't competent to decide these disputes, there are courts for that.
@DigitalOcean - These mistakes can ruin your image, you went up fast, but you can come down even faster!
"....Rookie mistake!...." I suspect it was nothing "rookie" about the process, only cheaper. By complying with the request the service provider pushed the legal cost of fighting onto the site owner. A lot of service providers seem to have taken this route to avoid legal costs, simply adding a line to their Ts & Cs stating that "unacceptable behavior" will lead to termination. As the majority of customers will (usually) not be an issue, the loss of one small customer will be offset be the savings on legal fees and the increased business through more competitive, cheaper hosting fees. Whilst you may decry their approach as immoral, it makes perfect business sense. If you feel that strongly about it you should find a hoster that offers to legally fight for you, but you'll probably end up paying more for the sense of moral superiority.
so when a musician or record label sues because its song was used without permission by the "wrong" party, there is celebration.
Apparently it has nothing to do with trademark, only political alignment. That which I like is Good, that which I do not is Bad. Who cares about details, amirite?
Bad NRA! because people with guns might do something bad, because no politically correct cause ever has anything bad done by it's defined members, or something. So to hell with adulting, and rights, and responsibilities if it Saves One Child, Yay!